Grow more pilots. The most significant thing we can do is to increase the number of active pilots. More pilots means more customers, which means more airplanes and more avionics and more gas and more parts. It also means lowered cost through economies of scale. Bigger markets equal smaller prices. A big lowly populated country needs flexibility in pilot training.

Embrace the innovators. GA is a conservative industry, entrenched in old, out-of-date practices and burdened by overwhelming regulation. We still see an industry that think the best way to train a new pilot is in an airplane twice the age of their average student. In a culture where toddlers are often using iPads and video games that have more computing power than the flight management systems on many aircraft, it is going to be very hard to entice potential pilots with 1940’s technology.

2. Why do Aviation Regulations Reverse the Onus of Proof?

When I started in aviation the burden of proof, when “safety” was jeopardised, rested with the regulator to prove by identifying an unsafe practice then finding the non-compliance or breach of the Act, Regulations or Order requirement. Justifying that “safety” had been jeopardised in the “opinion of the Inspector” was only upheld in AAT if the Inspector had the expertise to convince the courts – not always easy. What we now need is a Minister to direct that there should be no reverse onus of proof in the Act and Regulations (something that was once "normal legislative form") or that "strict liability" shall not be used where any measure of pilot/LAME decision making is involved, because it violates the definition of "strict liability" in the Criminal Code.

3. CASR Part 66 underpinning standards must be high priority.

CASR Part 66 should be identifying licences that meet Annex 1 (international standards) and the licence, however called, that do not meet Annex 1. One of the most important issues confronting maintenance is coming to terms whether we have a ‘recognised’ trade within the NVET system or whether we have a mixed trade/profession because of the application of the EASA knowledge based AME licencing system. There are three parts to the skilling of our workforce that are combined so that all parts suffer.

Practical trade skills underpin the ability of the workforce but these skills vary whether you work in an airline system that does not need some skills or an aircraft/component overhaul sector that needs all the practical skills to do repairs, modifications, etc.

International AME knowledge requirements for the avionic and mechanical maintenance should be separated from the current practical competency based training and treated more as ‘profession’ training that can be tested by examination. Basically what CASA Basic Examinations did in the past!

Licensing knowledge is a step above the AME practical/knowledge as identified by the ICAO AME training Manual. One of the real issues confronting the maintenance training is the underpinning skills/knowledge that a person needs when entering the aviation industry.

Regional Express (REX) said it relied heavily on the 457 visa to attract experienced captains due to a drainage of Australian pilots going to work at bigger carriers domestically and abroad.

Chief operating officer Neville Howell said it could have dire consequences for regional Australia.

"On the thinner routes, some of the marginal routes that we're operating, it could very well mean that we have to cease those operations or indeed reduce the frequency," Mr Howell said.

"That has all sorts of implications to the people in those remote communities."
Mr Howell would not say which routes could be potentially scrapped.

"I don't want to start hypothesising and jumping to conclusions in terms of which routes in particular, but suffice to say on some of the runs where we're not getting a great deal of passengers we would have to look at that first of all," he said.

"The other runs like, for example Orange and Griffith and so forth, those numbers are fine. But it is the thinner routes where our passenger uptake is not particularly good."

Call for immediate moratorium

Mr Howell said the Government needed to place an immediate moratorium on the changes until a well-considered replacement list of occupations was drawn up.
"If indeed changes need to be made, okay. But to just completely cut the legs off without consultation it doesn't make a great deal of sense," he said.

Quote:"It will undoubtedly tear apart the socio-economic fabric of many of the smaller regional cities that are heavily reliant on our services for medical, educational and business links.

"It's mindless policy-making. There is a shortage of that skilled labour."

The Regional Aviation Association of Australia echoed REX's concerns, saying Northern Territory operator Chartair had already grounded three of its largest aircraft because of a shortage of captains.

But its CEO, Mike Higgins, stopped short of backing calls for a moratorium.

"What we're saying is that we're happy to work with the Government to do a review," Mr Higgins said.

"We feel that while there are some professions that are exempt, for example real estate agents, hairdressers and so forth, it's breathtaking that captains and aircraft engineers who are in dire shortage have been excluded.

Quote:"It's going to cause a great harm. We're very hopeful that we can sit down and have a sensible discussion about the way forward, particularly with experienced captains."

& from KC, via AMROBA... :

Quote:1. GA Future Depends on More Pilots.

The government’s 457 Visa decision places more pressure to adopt the FAA cost-effective pilot training system. Pilot training just cannot provide the number of pilots commercially needed. There has always been poaching by larger operators but today, Australia does not have the capability to provide or attract enough pilots. Without the 457, industry will suffer.

CASA managed regulatory reform has failed to produce jobs in aviation, especially by removing the flexibility of learning to fly.

Grow more pilots. The most significant thing we can do is to increase the number of active pilots. More pilots means more customers, which means more airplanes and more avionics and more gas and more parts. It also means lowered cost through economies of scale. Bigger markets equal smaller prices. A big lowly populated country needs flexibility in pilot training.

Ans. Adopt FAR Part 61 independent flight instructor system.

Embrace the innovators. GA is a conservative industry, entrenched in old, out-of-date practices and burdened by overwhelming regulation. We still see an industry that think the best way to train a new pilot is in an airplane twice the age of their average student. In a culture where toddlers are often using iPads and video games that have more computing power than the flight management systems on many aircraft, it is going to be very hard to entice potential pilots with 1940’s technology.

Be willing to change. The current pilot population and industry infrastructure must be willing to adapt to the times. This means changing attitudes and behaviours, especially government public servants. We must embrace our communities, support our airports, open our hangar doors and fence gates. We must share expenses, share ownership, share responsibility, and continue to create a culture of safety first.

Add to these points the following:

Provide training for the future. Australia has one of the best climates and huge open airspace that should be accommodating major aviation international training industry for pilots, engineering, and maintenance for the Indo/Asia/Pacific region. Update training to meet the needs means adopting cost effective international training standards. Australian pilot, engineering and maintenance global training providers should be registered with ICAO.

Streamline training. With the current use of IPads from a young age, new students should be able to download the full ‘knowledge’ elements of maintenance training when the person starts training. This system should also enable on-line examinations. Only the practical elements need direct student/trainer involvement.

International equivalent licence and certificates. Pilot and AME licences should be based on meeting these international training standards and their licences should state they meet the Convention Annex 1 standards. This is the first step to once again having Australian LAME’s being accepted internationally. Academic qualifications that meet the Annex minimum standards. This also complies with Article 37 of the Convention.

Domestic only licences and certificates. The Convention places an obligation on Australia to adopt international training standards for personnel (Article 37) BUT the Convention also provides provisions (Articles 39 & 40) for ‘licences’ for personnel that do not meet the international standards AS LONG AS the ‘licence is endorsed as not meeting the international standards. This is the international standard that is used for the maintenance authority system that should be classified as a limited licence.

These Articles are what CASA and its predecessors also used to issue limited, experimental etc. certificates to aircraft.

These provisions means CASA can promulgate applicable personnel standards to maintain aircraft that do not meet an international type certification standard, like recreational and ex-military aircraft, to operate within Australian airspace. The Convention also enables such aircraft to fly to another country if that country gives permission.

Is it time that the aviation regulatory system identified “aircraft inspection” separately from other maintenance actions as it is done in the FARs? CASA’s ageing aircraft concerns raised this as a major issue and various condition reports that AMROBA is aware of, and we know CASA also sees these reports, is clearly identifying a worsening trend instead of an improvement.

If we have a worsening trend then we have the wrong regulatory environment that is not ensuring airworthiness standards and practices are being applied at the coal face. Everyone has complained about skills & training since the introduction of CASR Part 66 but no corrective reaction yet from CASA. Does this mean that CASA believes the regulatory environment is not the “causal” problem?

The Civil Aviation Act (20AB (2)) clearly states that a person must be permitted by or under the regulations to do maintenance. Who is permitted to do aircraft inspections? What skills/qualifications should they have? We are aware of aircraft registered operators “authorising” persons that are not licenced and do not have AME trade qualifications to work on VH registered type certificated aircraft.

2. Cable Inspection AD Review

Many operators have changed their flight control cables so they won’t be happy with CASA if it cancels/amends the AD that should never have been published. AMROBA Newsletter Vol. 11, Issue 3, (March 2014) available on the website, raised the approved cable inspection maintenance standard that should be applied in GA. As FAA AC 43-13-1 states, cable tensions need to be relieved to perform inspections correctly.

This means every annual inspection maintenance records would require ‘independent’ inspections to rig and functional check flight control systems that had been inspected. As pointed out in the 2014 Newsletter, CASA’s “standard” specified in CAAP 43B-1 still has not been “harmonised” with international standards so why do CASA expect things to change?

Extending the life of cables past a manufacturer/regulator “recommended” replacement time, places the responsibility on the inspector LAME to determine, in the same manner as extending engines or any other component with a “recommended maintenance/overhaul” period, to be safe to proceed beyond the recommended period. Is it wise to make such decisions?

3. Aerospace and Aviation working together

Both the aerospace and aviation industry are working together identifying the skills needs for the future. There is a common concern that the skills need to improve to provide a workforce for the future. It is clear that too much has been placed on the past and not will be the future. Australia should be a powerhouse in the India/Asia/Pacific Region providing aerospace and aviation higher education and vocational training to all in this region.

However, both the aerospace and aviation industries are concerned that the education capability within this country is not taking advantage of the growth within the Indo/Asia/Pacific Region. Aircraft, and many components, require the same hand skills in maintenance and manufacturing but both sectors have identified the lack of skills that are an outcome of the national vocational education training system. Training must return to being based on the minimum international standards. It is interesting to note in the ICAO AME Training Manual that it states: “the standard of training recommended in this manual is intended to be sufficient for an individual to qualify for a licence”.

We once had a comparable AME licencing system to what is provided by EASA, FAA, etc. The process should be simple. Most MRO workers complete an aviation trade training course, civil or military, or an allied trade, complete a workplace regulatory experience period, plus self-study, then sit and pass the NAA's applicable examinations. What industry wanted was the removal of duplication of RTO’s examinations and the CASA Basic Examinations. Like EASA, industry expected the NAA examinations to be provided/controlled by the RTO on behalf of CASA.

Basically, when the implementation of CASR Part 66 failed to adopt all provisions of EASR Part 66 and Part 147, CASA applied a completely different system in Australia.

2. Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement.

Firstly, we need CASA to meet the intent of this agreement and keep impediments to mutual recognition to a minimum. The purpose of this agreement was to improve recognition of registered occupation (AME/LAME) between Australia & New Zealand. The fundamental purpose of mutual recognition is to promote economic integration and increased trade between participants by reducing regulatory impediments to the movement of goods and people in registered occupations across jurisdictions.

The simple fix to improve productivity and access in the Australasian market was to "harmonise" closely with the NZ maintenance and manufacturing personnel VET qualifications. This concept was abandoned by CASA during the 2000s when Byron focused CASA on the EASA regulations that provided harmonisation for Europeans, not Australasia.

"The TTMRA is built upon, and is a natural extension of, the MRA. It represents a deepening of the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA). The impetus for the TTMRA came from government recognition that there were regulatory impediments to trade between New Zealand and Australia."

Access to the TTMRA Guide here.

3. General Aviation can safely grow by adopting FARs.

General aviation is a lot more than private owners. It is all operators, organisations and individuals outside the major airline system, including design, manufacturing and maintenance. Under the FAR system, all aircraft maintenance requirements are specified in FAR 91.409 and US manufactured aircraft maintenance manuals are compliant with these regulations. The system has worked extremely well for many decades.

FAR Part 91 is the core of the operational USA regulations and, if you believe the CASA Parts map, CASA sees it as the core to all the operation regulations in Australia. Instead of adopting the FAR Part 91, as supported by general aviation for the last two decades, minority sector representation have politically demanded that CASA provide sector regulatory provisions be produced prior to making the core regulation. This means that many provisions included in Part 91 are being duplicated in these separate Parts instead of adopting less confusing regulatory provisions from FAR Part 91.

The core regulations for GA is FAR Parts 91 and 43, including a ‘controlled" FBO system based on AC 150/5190-7 where FBO Specialised Service Organisations could be registered on a CASA database.

As usual the inestimable KC spells out in clear concise English the problems and the possible solutions for tackling the current regulator and regulatory impasse beleaguering the long suffering General Aviation industry:

Quote:1. General Aviation – Regulatory Operating in the Past.

Since the late 1980s, Australian GA has regressed, not progressed by modernising the regulatory system. Only the USA has general aviation sectors similar to ours. The FARs are a total GA system that the Pacific Region has adopted. Time is now crucial to stabilise, harmonise and reverse the current decline.

It makes no difference if you look at flight operations or the engineering fields of design, manufacturing and maintenance; general aviation is being regulated with outmoded philosophies when compared with the mature safe and proven USA system. Even the basic ICAO/FAA requirement to maintain aircraft as “airworthy” is not an Australian requirement. The most proven “performance-based” set of regulations that supports the safest and viable general aviation, is the FARs. Adoption must happen ASAP.

GA private operations, up to the FAR “Air Taxi” operations; GA manufacturing and even the adoption of a modified FAA FBO AMO system should also be implemented. Previous regulatory changes have not improved safety or created jobs; they have created an environment where jobs and participation are continually decreasing. It must be reversed so aviation can grow again.

If the GA aspects of the FARs were adopted, then representatives from other “operational” sectors would continue to lobby against FAR Part 91 as it would remove many regulatory imposts that have been implemented during the last decade or two by high profile lobbyists. It is time for government/CASA to start adopting the FARs for the benefit of general aviation that includes design, maintenance and manufacturing aspects. Adoption would also harmonise us in the Asia/Pacific Region.

Manufacturing: The Australian General Aviation Manufacturing Alliance (AGAMA) of businesses are being badly treated because the adoption of CASR Part 21 in 1998 imposed a fabrication inspection system that Australia had replaced with quality systems decades before. The FAA made major changes to Part 21 in 2009 to implement quality systems and CASR equivalent has not kept harmonised with the FAR.

GA Charter: Pre regulatory changes in the 1990s, the industry had a large number of small airlines (supplemental), GA small charter and individuals approved to provide pilot training that kept these sectors active and viable. When the FAR system was adopted, the FAA “Air Taxi” system was favoured by many. Irrespective, larger regional airlines will not support small GA Charter and/or Air Taxi but that should not prevent a cost effective safe system being implemented. The sad reality will be an over regulated system with airline type controls that will require high overheads that prevent small aircraft commercial operations.

Controlled FBO System: Pre regulatory economic reform/development, small AMOs existed without airline administrative requirements. In the US, the standards that are applied to FBO maintenance organisations are specified in an AC on condition the FBO employs FAA approved personnel who must comply with the applicable FAR Parts. Why not enable such operations in Australia as long as the FBO electronically registers on a CASA database and complies with CASA promulgated “standards” adopted from the FAA AC.

CASR Part 91 addresses the core of general aviation and CASA has failed to adopt FAR Part 91 as originally proposed to the aviation industry in the late 1990s. 20 years later and CASA has not finalised this most important regulatory operations Part that affects:

Not directly related to AMROBA but IMO the following article, from the JDA Journal blog, provides an excellent example of the importance of MROs, LAMEs, maintenance controllers etc. of keeping up with the often laborious paperwork associated with aircraft maintenance and airworthiness... :

“All that time filling out records takes time away from the real work.”

“As long as I get it mostly right, it’s okay. Only the FAA cares about crossing “t’s” and they can’t tell the difference if I forgot to dot the “I”.

“I wait until the end of the day to fill out the records. Stopping in the middle of work makes it hard to get the engine out on time. Yea, after 8 hours on the floor, I’m tired and sometimes forget. Who cares?”

These are comments that can be heard in an MX hangar any day. An AMT or an IA or anyone who twists wrenches for a job. Unfortunately, those are not the sentiments of FAA PMIs, Safety Inspectors and others surveilling all types of aviation. While it may appear to the folks on the floor to be form over substance, there are good reasons why paperwork is sacrosanct.

The FAA is a stickler for record keeping. Any time a mechanic works on an airplane or performs an annual inspection, FAA rules require him to make and certify accurate records of the work performed in the airplane’s maintenance logbook. Whether the mechanic replaces an engine or simply tinkers with a gauge, the logbook must collect its due.

The facts of this case involved an owner taking his Cessna to mechanic who holds an Aircraft Mechanic Certificate and Inspection Authorization for major alterations (installing a G-model engine and a 78-inch propeller). Instead Lawson installed a K-model and an 80-inch propeller. He signed
(1) inspected the Aircraft and deemed it airworthy;
(2) installed a G-model engine pursuant to the field approval and Cessna STC; and
(3) repaired the Aircraft’s lower firewall with parts from a plane of the same year and model.
(4) He also completed and certified two Form 337s reflecting the alterations he had made. On Form 337(I)—the same one Moore approved—Lawson certified that he had installed a G-model engine and a 78-inch propeller.
(5) On Form 337(II), Lawson certified that he replaced the lower firewall in compliance with the applicable Cessna manual.

The mechanic believed that the two engines were “the same”; so, it was opinion that the alteration was airworthy even though the approved Form 337 did not reflect the work which he did. Each of these entries, the Board determined, was intentionally false and thus a violation of FAA regulations. See 14 C.F.R. § 43.12(a)(1) (prohibiting any person from “mak[ing] or caus[ing] to be made . . . [a]ny fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any record or report that is required to be made, kept, or used to show compliance with any requirement under this part”).

The Judge repeated the level of proof which the FAA must demonstrate to prove intentional falsification:

The FAA need not, however, prove that Lawson specifically intended to deceive or that someone relied upon his misrepresentation—those are elements of the distinct offense of fraud. Cassis, 737 F.2d at 546 (“Fraud and intentional falsification are distinct concepts for purposes of this regulation.”).

The mechanic responded that on this evidence he is guilty, at most, of poor wording and carelessness—not intentional falsification.

Intent is not an easy matter to prove and the Respondent stated that his intentions were not to be fraudulent. Under settled law, the papers must be read to determine if any discrepancies were excusable “ambiguities” or “omission.”

The opinion reviewed the facts and found that Mr. Lawson fraudulently signed the documents. The concluding paragraph is most compelling:

The FAA and the NTSB have staked out a consistent position in their intentional falsification cases. For good reason, they are serious about enforcing compliance withtheir maintenance rules and preserving the integrity of their records-keeping system. See Helms v. Cassis, 4 N.T.S.B. 555, 557 (1982) (“The maintenance of the integrity of the system of qualification for airman certification, which is vital to aviation safety and the public interest, depends directly on the cooperation of the participants and on the reliability and accuracy of the records and documents maintained and presented to demonstrate compliance.”), aff’d, 737 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1984). Thus, the Board’s cases make clear that even a single incident of intentional falsification constitutes a “lack of qualification” and justifies revoking the violator’s credentials. See, e.g., Adm’r v. McCarthney, 7 N.T.S.B. 670, at *2 (Dec. 28, 1990) (“[E]ven one intentional falsification compels the conclusion that the falsifier lacks the necessary care, judgment and responsibility required to hold any airman certificate.”); Olsen v. NTSB, 14 F.3d 471, 476 (9thCir. 1994) (concluding that one “intentionally false logbook entry regarding [an aircraft] tachometer” was “sufficient to justify the FAA’s revocation of [the mechanic’s] airframe and powerplant mechanic certificate”).Those who fail to comply with these rules do so at their own peril. And where, as here, they openly flout them, revocation is hardly arbitrary or capricious. It is to be expected.

Those are words, written by an impartial judge, which should make it clear to all that PAPERWORK MATTERS!

The judge’s explanation goes part way towards full comprehension of the FAA reliance on records.

First and foremost, there are not {nor have never been} enough inspectors to watch every AMT perform the work; consequently, the required forms are a surrogate for an inspector’s presence.

Second, in placing reliance on the certificate holders’ recording the critical steps, the FAA is depending on the honesty of the person signing. If the professional exercising that privilege is not able to accurately report the work performed, that trust is broken and the rights accorded by that certificate or authorization are invalidated.

Third, it is important to remember that “intent” can only be inferred. What you may think is nothing but mere sloppy entries or what you honestly believe is the “same” (as it well may be), the FAA can and may determine to be fraud and courts are likely to agree with the government.

It may be a “pain in the a__”. but the pain resulting from a failure to assiduously make every entry could kill your livelihood.

AMROBA met last week with CASA senior management. We left that meeting more confident, than we have in the past, CASA’s Executive, under Carmody’s leadership, is starting to understand that the Australian aviation engineering sectors must have a level playing field in the design, manufacturing & maintenance fields so our industry can create jobs and compete in global aviation markets.

So how do we prioritise? Every sector within our disciplines needs urgent change but some changes will happen later than others because more detailed discussions will be needed. It is not just adoption but the transition from where we are to where we need to be. That is, to fix the “design” and “manufacturing” issues.

Project 1. Amend CASR Part 21 Subpart J to fully adopt the EASA regulation, AMC & GM utilising the clarity of the FAA system of devolvement of regulatory functions to the approved design organisation.

Project 2. Amend applicable provisions of CASR Part 21 to align with FAR changes made in 2009. Available on AMROBA’s website – under Manufacturing refer FAR Part 21 2009 amendments . FAA cost benefits $250 saving for every $1.00 spent implementing these changes.

CASR Part 21 was made in 1998, based on FAR Part 21, and is now no longer harmonised with FAR 21 and world standards. The above two projects do not need additional consultation, they need regulatory action so our regulatory system can once again align with global airworthiness and manufacturing standards; i.e. harmonisation. Adopting and implementing these changes will remove the variable interpretations from some CASA staff based on CASR Part 21 that is 18 years out of date...&..

This submission to CASA requires CEO Carmody to take control of CASA not, as we have witnessed in the past, the staff of CASA control the Executive. This is a small regulatory change compared to other reforms needed to align CASR Part 91 with FAR Part 91 or Part 61 with FAR Part 61...

Aviation engineering is a job creating industry that can be further grown if we realise that Australian aviation engineering is a domestic aviation market that is part of a regional aviation market that is part of an international aviation engineering market. Engineering: design, maintenance, manufacturing and training.

Though there are local dedicated engineering businesses supporting our local domestic market, it is impractical to have unique conditions that restrict involvement in the fast growing regional aviation market of the Asia/Pacific. This regional market will more than double in the next decade and will be reliant on design, maintenance, manufacturing and technical training disciplines from within the region and beyond. We need regional uniformity & streamline all industry/government practices and procedures so that unnecessary Australian red tape is removed so businesses can compete within Australia and are capable of providing engineering services to regional and global markets.

A core underpinning requirement is that our VET qualifications must have clarity in terminology and be acceptable within the Asia/Pacific region and also global aviation engineering markets.

There is concern within the engineering disciplines that fundamental changes, so businesses and individuals can participate in the local, regional and global aviation engineering markets, are taking far too long.

Removal of unique Australian terminology and practices and adoption of at least regional aviation terminology and practices is fundamental for business and individuals to participate in these markets.

Design: CASA has indicated that full adoption of the EASA design organisation regulatory requirements (EASA CS Part 21 Subpart J) will be fully adopted. This has high priority so Approved Design Organisations can become more involved regionally as well as domestically.

Manufacturing: CASA has indicated that full adoption of FAA manufacturing requirements (FAR Part 21, except for Subpart J and M) will be fully adopted. This also has high priority because of the effect it has on our manufacturing businesses. Aircraft, parts, ASTC, APMA & ATSO systems of current FAR Part 21 are different from the out-dated CASR Part 21.

Maintenance: CASA is consulting, but not yet committed, to adopting FAR Part 43 which is the only system that addresses the MRO and maintenance aspects of the CASA registered aircraft fleet. FAR Part 43 and associated FARs will modernise and unify maintenance requirements. Harmonisation has more benefits in our local and regional markets.

Training: This is another urgent field to unify. We employ Aircraft Maintenance Engineers but we have no national VET qualification titled “Aircraft Maintenance [and] Engineering”, the most common terminology used in the Asian region. There is an urgent need to change the VET “MEA Aerospace” terminology that will enable better recognition and acceptance within the Asia/Pacific Region. There is a current urgent “Case for Change” to fix the current lack of VET qualifications to support the CASR Part 66 B1.2 and B1.4 aircraft maintenance engineer licences. Underpinning VET qualifications to a system that was adopted from EASA needs a new VET training package system.

It is now the end of September 2017, and industry is now totally dependent on government, CASA and the Australian Industry Skill Committee and its Aerospace Industry Reference Committee to implement the identified changes (needed by government, CASA regulations, standards, procedures and NVET training qualifications) to enable our aviation businesses and individuals to not only participate in the local aviation engineering disciplines, but to be able to participate globally, especially in the Asia/Pacific region.

Some of these changes should have happened, in the opinion of businesses and individuals, over a decade ago when regulatory changes imposed many uniquely Australian conditions.

Aviation engineering is a global industry/market, any differences from international standards negatively affects participation in local, regional and global markets.

Instead of creating jobs now in the aviation engineering sectors, the regulatory and standards changes that are needed to harmonise globally, and will create jobs, are being painstakingly processed through an over-bureaucratic red tape system that keeps Australia lagging behind our progressive Asian neighbours. The more they delay changes to adopt EASA and FAA regulatory standards, the public servants will continue to create red tape for current requirements that are not in these proposed adopted regulatory systems. It is not only within CASA, but it also is within the education system.

Industry participants are witnessing a return to pre CASR days with the red tape continuing to be created. There are many businesses holding approvals from other NAAs so they can participate in the regional and global aviation markets. Others are working through a third party in a foreign country bypassing CASA as Australian approvals issued by CASA are not recognised in many countries.

Are we supporting, or, over regulating an industry to minimal involvement?

Engineering regulatory changes are fairly straight forward, but will public servants working for CASA/DIRD adopt the same practices of EASA or FAA? Looking at increasing documentation that has come out over the last few years, there is little confidence throughout the industry that adopting the EASR or FAR will be implemented by CASA in the same manner as EASA or FAA.

Many trying to participate in engineering sectors are continually frustrated at the differing approaches and direction regulatory reform has taken over the last two decades. The only direction that engineering sectors want CASA & government to take is to fulfil the international convention and adopt international standards. The signing of the BASA with the USA many years ago requires full adoption of, and continual harmonisation with, the FARs. The government did that in 1998 when CASR Parts 21-35 were made based on the FAR system. What government/CASA has failed to do is amend CASR Part 21 to adopt amendments made to FAR Part 21 since 1998.

CASA’s current management recognises the need for these changes but are dealing with a bureaucratic process that takes too long to bring about the change.

Industry sees CASA as part of a total government system, so when aviation regulatory change happens, it also expects CASA to coordinate the effects of these changes with other government departments and agencies. In the recent past this has not happened as well as it could have.

A very important outcome of adopting and maintaining the FAR manufacturing, STC, PMA & TSO system is the international recognition and agreements that CASA can, and must, attain to create jobs. International agreements is crucial for the continual growth of the engineering design and manufacturing sectors in Australia. This requires CASA to be skilled in negotiating technical agreements for the benefit of our engineering organisations.

Many current businesses involved in design and manufacturing are also involved in our defence industry design and manufacturing contracts so keeping harmonised with world’s best design and manufacturing regulatory systems is paramount for future contracts that result in Australian jobs.

The EASA design organisation and administrative requirements in EASR Part 21 Subpart J is urgent as it meets civil and defence requirements but must be adopted word for word and also the utilisation of AMC/GM.

CASA then needs to obtain technical agreements from as many Asia/Pacific nations as possible to open our design capability in the Asia/Pacific region. This will create jobs.

The FAA Part 21, excluding Subpart J and M, adoption will also require CASA to obtain, as a minimum, technical agreements with as many Asia/Pacific nations as possible to open our manufacturing capabilities in the Asia/Pacific Region. In addition, CASA has to also obtain recognition of the Part 21 approvals, Australia TC, STC, PMA, TSO, etc. with as many Asia/Pacific nations as possible. This will create jobs.

AMROBA fully encourages CASA current management to make the changes required, but we are also aware that the process to make change is so slow, industry has to continue to work within an ageing system that continually is applied differently by continually changing CASA middle managers and staff.

Patience is needed because CASA has lacked stability and their regulatory experience has been depleted.

2. International Recognition of NVET Qualifications.

CASR Part 66, when introduced, should have meant a complete review of the national VET qualifications. When the Asia/Pacific region adopted the EASA Part 66 Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Licencing system, their education qualifications were totally remodelled to match the adopted separate licences.

The Asian nations adopted EASR Part 66 and they also created education qualifications, e.g. "Aircraft Maintenance [&] Engineering" that underpins the issue of the mainly Part 66 B1.1/3 and B2 licencing system throughout the Asia/Pacific nations. The ‘field of study’ is "Aircraft Maintenance & Engineering".

Though Asian countries still have slight differences in education qualifications, Australia is the odd country using ageing terminology that is not recognisable within this region and globally. As one Asian engineering executive stated, Australia has had "aircraft maintenance engineers" for years but support it with training packaged as "MEA Aeroskills" instead of VET qualifications titled "Aircraft Maintenance Engineering".

Asia/Pacific nations’ aviation MRO representatives are appealing for more harmonised "education qualifications" to enable the movement of qualified people within the region.

In particular, the needs of workshop maintenance personnel VET qualifications need to be harmonised. New Zealand education qualifications are more specific and support various occupations in maintenance support organisations.

If CASAs PIR adopts the EASR Part 66 properly then the basis for an AME licence is passing the applicable module examinations that make up the modules for one of the five Part 66 AME licences. In addition, the only other regulatory aspect is the experience requirements. Acceptance of a VET qualification enables a reduction in experience requirements. Having a VET qualification based on a 75% examination pass mark may underpin the licencing requirements but doesn’t support the other occupations in the MRO industry.

However, most businesses prefer employees to hold an education qualification under the VET system.

It became clear at the recent Indonesian MRO conference that foreign education systems had been, or are being, developed to meet the many occupations within the aviation MRO industry.

AMROBA has made a submission to the Aerospace Industry Reference Committee to adopt the most common title of VET qualifications in the Asia/Pacific region. Change MEA Aeroskills to AQF diplomas/certificates in Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering.

It is time to have education qualification documents that actually describes the field of study applicable to the occupations in the MRO industry just like so many other countries.

Diploma/Certificate in Aircraft Maintenance & Engineering identifying the field of study just makes practical common-sense.

Clarifying such a qualification with the occupation (licence and non-licence occupations).

Component maintenance organisations requiring VET qualifications have been ignored for far too long. Many component workshops need deeper knowledge than what a LAME needs to maintain components on-wing so there is an urgent need to identify those occupations and specify the specific skills needed for the occupations. Australia does not need to start from nothing, it only needs to adopt the New Zealand VET system diploma and certificates that has already identified in their VET qualifications required for the occupations in the aircraft maintenance sector.

Education qualifications are generally defined in terms of the package or mix of competencies or learning outcomes required to meet an occupational job role.

Aviation, for some past reason, has never been made so employers can interpret what the person actually has been educated to what standards. 3. Do Politicians Understand How Jobs Can Be Created In GA?

Adopt the best regulations and practices from countries like the USA that have a comparable GA spread.

After five decades of being involved in the aviation MRO industry, it is sad to see this industry being segmented by regulatory imposed compartmentalised sectors. Segmenting has never worked to increase participation or jobs in this industry.

There was once a "principle" applied by government/CASA requiring a "parallel pathway" for CASA registered aircraft and non CASA registered aircraft operating under Self Administration Organisations.

What is missing from the general aviation system is the FAA "independent flight instructor" that Australia had a version of pre the creation of the CAA in 1988. Pilot shortages were recognised in the mid 1990s.

Since the creation of CAA, industry stability and core fundamental regulations and standards have been in continual state of change. In addition, political direction has continually changed since the parliamentary review in the late 1980s.

Asian politicians, on the other hand, are aware that aviation is a job creating industry if the right regulatory system is adopted. EASA concentrates on airline sectors whereas the FAA is a system covering all sectors of aviation.

At the recent Indonesian MRO conference, three government ministers spoke of their support and growth in aviation.

Most politicians are supportive of aviation but do not become involved because of the fear of safety being compromised.

If the FAA system for general aviation was adopted, then independent flight instructors, a fixed based operator system and the need for a LAME with the FAA Inspection Authorisation responsibilities, same as New Zealand, would see growth over time as independent flight instructors become available.

Many past independent flight instructors were retired airline pilots.

The capability for growth and job creation is available if the world best general aviation safety system is adopted.

Growth in the engineering disciplines of design, maintenance, manufacturing and training are waiting the adoption of the best international standards for safety and economics.

Political support is crucial to grow any industry in the current economic and environmental society applied by social media and politicians. Most country members of governments have always shown support for aviation. However, as international experience has been depleted in CASA, the replacements with less experience are risk adverse instead of risk management that experienced public servants provided.

The economic reform that started in the late 1980s has been replaced by unique requirements that no longer apply in the major countries like North America and Europe.

Aircraft maintenance engineers who since May have had parts of their licences suspended after an air safety regulator audit exposed a serious TAFE SA training bungle that risked the lives of air travellers have been told they must redo key course modules.
Letters to those affected said the Civil Aviation Safety Autho­rity, in co-operation with TAFE SA, had completed a review of training assessment records and supporting documentation.

In many cases, “training assessment standards ... have not been completed”, letters say, and some conditions on licences will remain suspended “until the training and/or assessment deficiencies have been rectified”.

“Your failure to meet the required standards for the issue of that licence raises potentially significant aviation safety concerns,” a letter from the head of CASA’s licensing team, Craig Johnson, says.

“On the basis of the records provided by TAFE SA, CASA is unable to be satisfied that you have received adequate levels of training and undergone appropriate assessments to demonstrate that you are competent to safely exercise all the privileges conferred (by the licence).

“CASA is not attributing any fault or blame on your part. TAFE SA ... did not ensure that the ­applicable training assessment standards were satisfied in ­accordance with the relevant syllabus and the applicable legislative requirements.”

TAFE SA has offered, free of charge, retraining with an “allocated lecturer” or with another CASA-accredited training provider. As revealed by The Weekend Australian on September 2, about 90 aircraft maintenance engineers, whose jobs are to ensure planes and helicopters are safe to fly, were caught up in the scandal.

Those affected include a small number of Qantas engineers and others employed by CHC Helicopter, the largest commercial helicopter operator in Australia.

A CASA spokesman yesterday said issues with training assessments and outcomes varied on a case-by-case basis. “Different ­requirements for different ­students,” the spokesman said.

TAFE SA executive director of education Brian Rungie yesterday said its status as a maintenance training organisation was being returned on a staged basis, and it could now again conduct CASA exams and make recommendations on the issuing of ­licences.

“We expect CASA to have ­assessed all information and ­respond in the near future regarding the return of the full MTO ­status,” Mr Rungie said.

South Australian Deputy Opposition Leader Vickie Chapman said the scandal was unacceptable. “This is not about greasing a bicycle chain. This is about keeping planes in the sky,” she said.

It was revealed last week that TAFE SA had failed an Australian Skills Quality Authority accreditation in all 16 courses randomly selected for an audit, affecting 2500 students.

Dunno Thorny; not ‘plugged in’ to engineering training – but I wonder if the ‘accelerated’ sections were something like “This is a spanner, spanners come in several flavours, there’s your open ended, flat version, the ring spanner with it’s cute little goose neck to get into awkward spaces, then there’s you ‘socket’ spanner with all these little attachments to make life easy and speedy”. These are very different tools to the ‘screwdriver’ etc.

I’d reckon most blokes who wanted to be a LAME would probably have a half decent, basic tool kit before they signed on – and – probably knew exactly how to use ‘em, having fixed motor bikes, out board engines, the lawnmower, Mum's washing machine and ‘the Commodore’ over the weekend.

I could understand the angst if say the ‘lock wiring’ element had been skipped through; or the torqueing of cylinder head bolts had been omitted; but CASA have been very coy in releasing ‘the audit’ results. I, for one would like to know what all the fuss is about – perhaps it’s the OH&S part, which warns you of a wet floor and leaves stupid little cones about the place to fall over – rather than just clean up the spill - who knows. But, for this much fuss the audit should be made public; just so we can see why.

My toolkit weighs in at just under 400 Kg all up, excluding machinery, that would fill in a happy day for the lads and lasses at ‘tech’, some of it is older than 150 years in service. Wonder what they’d make of some of the wheel wrights tools or; carriage makers gear; or the old school blacksmiths bits and bobs; great fun, useful and still functioning.

Post-implementation feedback on CASR Part 66 (maintenance licences and ratings) appears to expose a raft of flaws that stand to threaten the viability of the maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) industry.

Part 66 was originally designed for airline maintenance systems, but was extended to cover general aviation and charter organisations, which was seen by the GA MRO industry as over-burdening operators and engineers.

The consultation, which was part of a post-implementation review, was open from 21 February to 26 May this year and garnered 70 submissions, of which 48 were able to be made public.

The feedback summary is repetitive with its use of the words "complexity", "lack of understanding" and "lack of clarity". It also highlights to CASA and the education authorities failures with the aviation engineering training system.

Respected Wagga engineer Mark Wallace was scathing in his submission.

"I struggle to contain and put down on paper the issues raised with the submission required to cover this. The amount of discussion, heartburn, disappointment, anger, frustration and other emotions that have covered the issues raised can barely be contained.

"The unintended consequences of the licensing system as it stands because of the mixing of the old CAR 31 licence to a full Part 66 licence means that some people can sign for some of the aeroplane, some people can sign for different bits of the aeroplane, but all must consult their licences to discover whether they can sign for all of the aeroplane.

"Some of this was obvious and to be expected on the implementation of any new system, but we are 7 years down the road and appear to be worse off now than ever before under the old system."

LAME Peter Dwyer has been working on GA aircraft for 39 years, giving significant credibiity to his feedback.

"It is a fact that the industry did not want the CAR 31 system abolished in the first place which was made plainly clear to CASA well before it was thrown out with the bath water and the CASR Part 66 licence implemented," he stressed in his submission.

"All attempts to date by CASA to meet the needs of the industry for small aircraft licencing has fallen into the gutter due to the lack of attention to what has been explained to CASA by the industry.

"It is overwhelmingly acknowledged by the industry that a 'small' aircraft is not limited to the C172 model of complexity and that it involves a vast array of aircraft and systems previously covered by the CAR 31 licence system and that the reinstatement of the CAR 31 licence system is the most appropriate and workable that is out there."

Ken Cannane, Executive Director of the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) said the feedback sent a clear message to CASA.

"The majority of comments are telling us that Part 66 just doesn't work and we need to resurrect the old system," he told Australian Flying.

"Most of the comments come from general aviation, because that's where it doesn't work. As far as the airlines are concerned, Part 66 works because it was made to cover them, but then expanded to cover all the other [general aviation] licences.

"If CASA had just stuck to the airlines, then Part 66 would have worked OK."
Despite the volume of feedback and consistency of calls to revert to CAR 31, Cannane believes the consultation is unlikely to bring about meaningful change.

"My optimism about this going anywhere is pretty low," he said. "We're going back to committees and talk-fests. We've been consulting for 20 years and it's time decisions were made and directions given, and I think everyone in the industry feels that way.

"We've got an industry out there in general aviation that is really struggling, and its diminishing. We've gone backwards in general aviation every time we've had a regulatory change since the 1990s."

CASA says it will now form a technical working group for the post-implementation project for Part 66, drawing members from the recently-established experts register.
The summary and published feedback are all on the CASA website.

When will aviation have proper regulatory reform meeting the PM’s policy?

Department of Prime Minister: "The challenge for any government is to deliver effective and efficient regulation and regulatory frameworks that impose the least necessary burden on businesses, community organisations and individuals in delivering economic and social outcomes.

Recent changes to the Australian Government regulatory policy and governance arrangements will improve regulatory quality and support its focus on regulatory reforms to directly enhance innovation, competition, productivity and economic growth. Efforts to reduce compliance burden will continue to be a focus of the Government’s regulatory policy.

From late 2013, the Australian Government put in place a reformed approach to managing regulation to reduce the cost of complying with Australian Government rules and regulation. It also put in place arrangements to foster significant change in regulatory practice across the Australian Public Service.

From 1 July 2016 the Government is strengthening the focus of its Regulatory Reform Agenda to pursue regulatory reforms that remove barriers to competition, innovation and growth; building on the ongoing commitment to cut red tape, improve regulator performance, and strengthen Regulatory Impact Analysis processes.

Through the strengthened Agenda, the Government will continue to minimise the cost of complying with Australian Government regulations while also working to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to productivity, innovation and growth."

Without doubt, all industry has seen produced under this policy is the opposite to the PM Regulatory Reform policy clearly stated on the website of the PM.

Obviously, those within CASA do not see themselves as part of government unlike the FAA reforms being carried out under President Trump’s direction.

Even ‘Blind Freddy’ can see that adopting the USA aviation system would meet the PM’s policy for all six major topics listed above.

Surely CASA would have provided a plan to meet these government initiatives that would remove the unique and unnecessary regulations and red tape that is restricting this industry, especially General Aviation, from achieving its full potential.

After the snub that KC received at the hands of Chester, one has to admire if nothing else the stoicism and ability of KC to steadfastly remain on message - makes you wonder if he knows something that we don't because buggered if I'd be putting up with the spin'n'bulldust platitudes and time delaying tactics of this miniscule to date...

Via KC & AMROBA:

Quote:1. Safety is the responsibility of industry.

The Civil Aviation Act states in Section 9(2) that:-

"CASA also has the following safety-related functions:

(a) encouraging a greater acceptance by the aviation industry of its obligation to maintain high standards of aviation safety,"

When you have a willing industry, why would you not adopt and implement performance based regulations that includes delegated authority as has been incorporated in the modernised FARs?

Refer our recent Breaking News - see: Further TAAAF update & AMROBA latest newsflash - where comparisons with the FAA’s modernised FAR Part 21, including consequential amendments to FAR Parts 45, 43, 91 & other operating regulations that provided significant savings to the industry. The FAA devolved many of their regulatory services to industry recognising the technical and organisational expertise that now exists in industry. Also reduced the FAA overall costs but enhanced safety.

2. Regulatory Reform Scorecards Ups & Downs.

As most reviews look at either the airline or sport aviation, it is time that GA private, small operators and GA charter be put under review. These are the sectors that have stagnated and/or reduced since regulatory reform started in 1990. The government’s policy states: "Our vision for aviation in Australia is to help the industry grow in an environment that is safe, competitive and productive."

A regulatory environment that is ‘safe, competitive and productive’ exists for GA in the USA but not Australia. Adopting the FARs for the non-airline sectors would help the industry to grow in an environment that is also safer than current regulatory standards.

Do we have general aviation private and small operators’ participation that we had in 1990 before reform started? The answer is NO. So the vision to help the industry to grow has been a bureaucratic regulatory reform failure.

3. GA Private & Commercial Aircraft Ops?

To get jobs and growth back into aviation, the aviation regulatory system needs major changes to recognise the difference between private and commercial use of aircraft to make a living.

Private operations not only includes private owners but aerialwork operations and associated maintenance services as well. All of these

operational and maintenance sectors have been swamped with regulatory requirement more akin to airline operations.

Maintenance organisations should be those that are approved to maintain airline operations to those that require no approval from CASA to maintain other aircraft. An organisation not requiring formal approval should still be required to register with CASA if they do aircraft maintenance.

Aero clubs, business aircraft owners, aerialwork operators and individual owners should be able to directly employ an appropriately rated LAME to maintain their own aircraft on condition they provide all the data, equipment and tooling to perform the maintenance.

A CASA registered AMO that complies with all the FAA FBO/SASO standards should be considered – similar to the past approval meeting CAO requirements.

I did not, not intentionally, mean to start a new year by looking backwards; but before doing anything on the road, you normally at least glance in the rear view mirror.

At last NY’s day :-SBG #1 - .1/.1./.17. -" for example the Australian aviation industry, where, clearly, it is to everyone’s advantage to make things ‘better’. Did that happen in 2016? Of course not. Could it have happened in 2016? It bloody well should have – alas. Australian aviation enters the new year still burdened by the same troubles; the same unresolved issues, the same deft deflection of meaningful reform, the same denial that there are serious problems. Mind you, as the industry shrinks, real reform and good management become of less concern to the people who not only created the aberration, but have the power to fix it". Amazing.

In what seems to be an already common theme - in AMROBA's last newsletter for 2017 - Volume 14 Issue 12 (December 2017) - KC takes a good hard look in the rear view mirror and in his usual indefatigable way nails the real issues and provides (free of charge) real solutions...